Things by their name in the country's economy
The traps in solitaire of some economists and politicians require that many others must be attentive so as not to lose touch with the economic reality in which intervention is desired. Thus, when they tell us that income is improving, and that employment is improving even more, they are indirectly telling us that productivity is falling; sometimes to imply later that this drop is due to the lack of effort of the workers, ignoring the role of business surpluses in the accompaniments of technology to labor. Likewise, it is frightening to see how some pride themselves on job creation, despite the extremely high unemployment rate that Spain maintains (and would have more if we correctly counted the number of unemployed). Let us remember that fixed-term discontinuous employees are not considered unemployed, even though they receive benefits, and that, therefore, ingenuity must be forced to calculate the effectively employed population.
When this statistical artifact is allowed, being and not being in the labor market as a result of seasonality, for example in the tourism sector, a specific activity is being subsidized that does not appear in the budgets and that many others who have seasonal businesses would very much like. All this has collateral effects: by doing so, the real productivity ratio is being inflated: values from the numerator (when the economy is not producing) leave the indicators and effective working hours that are otherwise quite idle disappear. If we considered the whole year, what the company loses in the low season is little (the economy is in recession), compared to the many unproductive hours that have disappeared from the denominator of the productivity ratio. And vice versa in high season: for the same hours the added value is very high, artificially, since only the good part of the pie is counted.
As a result, public policy allows the company not to assume payrolls for the low months, but it does appropriate production in the peak stage. This is nothing more than a hidden subsidy that we all pay for. These workers, more than anyone, recover their contributions, and companies see their complete costs alleviated. The result of all this is that it is difficult to explain that there are communities in which there are more unemployed people receiving all kinds of subsidies than the number of registered unemployed.
Why is it so difficult for a seasonal worker, say in the hotel industry, hired all year round, to do small maintenance jobs in carpentry, construction, or cleaning for the same company, instead of relying on public subsidies? Shouldn't agreements be made more flexible for that purpose, against the underground economy and in favor of improving workers' rights to pensions for saved periods of unemployment? Is it so complex for long-term unemployed individuals to offer tasks in sectors that lack labor, whether seasonal or not, that do not require special expertise? Surely we couldn't substitute, with those complements, the stress of workers already employed during high season, or the desperate search for more immigration, with all the social cost it entails (language, housing, schooling)? How do we want to do it for locals with increasingly narrow pay gaps between living on welfare (without formal work, without income and subsidies of up to 800 or 1,000 euros) and doing so from workfare (with net salaries of 1,500 euros at most for young employed people)? Is anyone surprised that many people don't look for work because of this difference? Or that sick leave and absenteeism are concentrated today among the youngest, healthy, rather than among older, sick workers? Why is it so difficult, at least in our Catalan social space, with a recognized higher cost of living, to agree with employers and unions on a significant increase in minimum wages so that certain companies can pay reasonable salaries that would make job offers more attractive? And to do so collectively, for non-outsourcable services, without seeking to be competitive with meager wages from external agreements or with the downward pressure from newly arrived fragile workers?
Inertias prevail in our society, from culture, the way of understanding life, to unions, conservative like no other for fear of losing what has been achieved, and some employers who adjust to the statu quo of their short term, to save seasons, under the protection of public protectionism, even if it means losing their role as instruments of progress and well-being.
